Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Perceptions of the ethicality of favors at work in Asia: An 11-society assessment

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We explore macro-level factors that shape perceptions of the ethicality of favors in Asian workplaces using the subordinate influence ethics (SIE) measure. We also expand and use the crossvergence model to examine the cross-level relationship between socio-cultural (i.e., traditional/secular; survival/self-expression; in-group favoritism) and business ideology influences (i.e., human development level, control of corruption) on perceptions of favor-seeking at work. This study examines the perceptions of a total of 4,325 managers and professionals in a diverse set of 11 Asian societies: China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. Our investigation focuses on both the “softer” (image management) and “harder” (self-serving) sides of subordinate influence attempts to seek favors, as well as the degree of ethical differentiation across these societies. Key results based on hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) suggest that both the World Value Survey’s socio-cultural values as well as in-group favoritism contribute to our understanding of influence behaviors in Asia. Likewise, level of human development and control of corruption also appear to be promising predictors of influence ethics. In sum, our results suggest that widening the scope of the crossvergence conceptualization of socio-cultural and business ideology influences engender a better understanding of differences in attitudes toward subordinate use of favoritism across Asian societies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akçay, S. 2006. Corruption and human development. Cato Journal, 26(1): 29–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alston, J. P. 1989. Wa, guanxi and inhwa: Managerial principles in Japan, China, and Korea. Business Horizons, 32(2): 26–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anastasi, A. 1982. Psychological testing, 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohra, K. A., & Pandey, J. 1984. Ingratiation toward strangers, friends, and bosses. Journal of Social Psychology, 122: 217–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, M. H., & Hwang, K. K. 1986. The social psychology of Chinese people. In M. H. Bond (Ed.). The psychology of Chinese people: 211–266. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonini, A. N. 2008. Cross-national variation in individual life satisfaction: Effects of national wealth, human development, and environmental conditions. Social Indicators Research, 87: 223–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J., Westbrook, M. T., & Mallock, N. A. 2007. How subordinates exert pressure on their managers: Anglo and Confucian-Asian comparisons. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(1): 40–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B., & Yuki, M. 2007. Culture and social identity. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.). Handbook of cultural psychology: 307–322. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., Friedman, R., Yu, E., & Sun, F. 2011. Examining the positive and negative effects of guanxi practices: A multi-level analysis of guanxi practices and procedural justice perceptions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(4): 715–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. 2002. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9: 233–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, H.-J., Heger, M., Pineda, J., & Rodriguez, F. 2011. Subtracting GNI from the HDI: A ‘non-income’ Human Development Index. http://hdr.undp.org/en/humandev/lets-talk-hd/2011-01a/, Human Development Report Office, UNDP, New York.

  • Cialdini, R. B. 2001. Influence: Science and practice, 4th ed. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collinson, S., & Rugman, A. M. 2007. The regional character of Asian multinational enterprises. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24(4): 429–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H., & Ruhe, J. A. 2003. Perceptions of country corruption: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 43: 275–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edfelt, R. B. 2010. Global comparative management: A functional approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egri, C. P., Ralston, D. A., Murray, C. S., & Nicholson, J. D. 2000. Managers in the NAFTA countries: A cross-cultural comparison of attitudes towards upward influence strategies. Journal of International Management, 6: 149–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. 1992. Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3): 638–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farh, J.-L., Zhong, C.-B., & Organ, D. W. 2004. Organizational citizenship behavior in the People’s Republic of China. Organizational Science, 15: 241–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, F. J. 2003. How much should I give and how often? The effects of generosity and frequency of favor exchange on social status and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 539–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, F. J. 2005. Identity orientations and forms of social exchange in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30: 737–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D., O’Boyle, E., & McDaniel, M. 2008. East meets West: A meta-analytic investigation of cultural variations in idealism and relativism. Journal of Business Ethics, 83: 813–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, G. R., & Nadler, S. S. 2008. Culture, economic development, and national ethical attitudes. Journal of Business Research, 61(3): 254–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu, P. P., Kennedy, J., Tata, J., Yukl, G., Bond, M. H., Peng, T.-K., Srinivas, E. S., Howell, J. P., Prieto, L., Koopman, P., Boonstra, J. J., Pasa, S., Lacassagne, M.-F., Higashide, H., & Cheosakul, A. 2004. The impact of societal cultural values and individual social beliefs on the perceived effectiveness of managerial influence strategies: A meso approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(4): 284–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu, P. P., & Yukl, G. 2000. Perceived effectiveness of influence tactics in the United States and China. Leadership Quarterly, 11: 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, R. A. 1996. Impact of ingratiation on judgments and evaluations: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71: 54–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, G., Zeile, W., & Kim, W. J. 1990. The network structures of East Asian economies. In S. R. Clegg & G. Redding (Eds.). Capitalism in contrasting cultures: 105–130. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, Y., & Altman, Y. 2010. Confucian moral roots of citizenship behaviour in China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 2(1): 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanges, P. L. 2004. Response bias correction procedure used in GLOBE. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman & V. Gupta (Eds.). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies: 737–751. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. 2002. Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53: 575–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • House, R. J. 2004. Illustrative examples of GLOBE findings. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The Globe study of 62 societies: 3–28. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). 2004. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R. 1997. Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. 2000. Modernization, cultural change and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65(2): 19–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. 2005. Modernization, cultural change and democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Monetary Fund. 2010. IMF’s regional outlook shows Asia leading global recovery. Press Release no. 10/175, Apr. 29. http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2010/pr10175.htm.

  • Jiang, X., Chen, C. C., & Shi, K. 2012. Favor in exchange for trust?. The role of subordinates’ attribution of supervisory favors. Asia Pacific Journal of Management.. doi:10.1007/s10490-011-9256-6.

  • Jones, E. E., Gergen, K. J., & Jones, R. G. 1963. Tactics of ingratiation among leaders of subordinates in a status hierarchy. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 77(3): 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. 1982. In J. Suls (Ed.). Psychological perspectives, Vol. 1: 231–267. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 1997. Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 75(4): 41–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. Y. 1991. Kuan-hsi and network building: A sociological interpretation. Daldalus, 120: 63–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. 1980. Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(4): 440–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds.). 2000. Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J., Tosi, H., & Cannella, A. A., Jr. 1999. Multilevel theory building: Benefits, barriers, and new developments. Academy of Management Review, 24: 243–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klugman, J., Rodríguez, F., & Choi, H.-J. 2011. The HDI 2010: New controversies, old critiques. Human Development Research Paper No. 2011/01, http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2011/papers/HDRP_2011_01.pdf.

  • Labelle, H. 2008. The cost of corruption. Compact Quarterly, 2: 13–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. 1990. Impression management: A literature review of the two component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107: 34–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S.-H., & Hong, S. J. 2012. Corruption and subsidiary profitability: US MNC subsidiaries in the Asia Pacific region. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(4): 949–964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, K., Bhagat, R., Buchan, N., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. 2005. Culture and international business: Recent advances and their implications for future research. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(4): 357–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, K., Koch, P. T., & Lu, L. 2002. A dualistic model of harmony and its implications for conflict management in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2–3): 201–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mauro, P. 1995. Corruption and growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3): 681–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, B. 1996. Translation and cultural adaptation of the survey instruments. In M. O. Martin & D. L. Kelly (Eds.). Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) technical report, vol 1: Design and development. Chestnut Hill: Boston College.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, D. J., Puffer, S. M., Dunlap, D. R., & Jaeger, A. M. 2012. A stakeholder approach to the ethicality of BRIC-firm managers’ use of favors. Journal of Business Ethics, 109: 27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orru, M., Biggart, N. W., & Hamilton, G. 1991. Organisational isomorphism in East Asia: Broadening the new institutionalism. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 361–389. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parboteeah, P. K., Hoegl, M., & Cullen, J. 2009. Religious dimensions and work obligation: A country institutional profile model. Human Relations, 62: 119–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puffer, S. M., McCarthy, D. J., & Boisot, M. 2010. Entrepreneurship in Russia and China: The impact of formal institutional voids. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 34(3): 441–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pye, L. W. 1999. Civility, social capital, and civil society: Three powerful concepts for explaining Asia. Journal of Contemporary History, 29: 763–767.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D. A. 2008. The crossvergence perspective: Reflections and projections. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(1): 27–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D. A., Egri, C. P., de la Garza-Carranza, M. T., Ramburuth, P., Terpstra-Tong, J., Pekerti, A., Grison, I., Herrig, H., Dabic, M., Tang, M., Wan, P., Hallinger, P., Palmer, I., Elenkov, D., Furrer, O., Potocan, V. V., Wangenheim, F., Maignan, I., Perrewé, P., Rossi, A. M., Lenartowicz, T., Ledgerwood, D. E., May, R. C., Weber, M., Jesuino, J. C., Fu, P. P., Naoumova, I., Casado, T., Riddel, L., Richards, M., Butt, A., Danis, W., Castro, F. B., Ruiz-Gutiérrez, J., Milton, L., Ansari, M., Brock, D., Srinivasan, N., Starkus, A., Dalgic, T., Darder, F. L., Hung, V. T., Moon, Y.-L., Chia, H. B., Kuo, M.-H. C., Molteni, M., Kangasniemi, M., Mellahi, K., & Wallace, A. 2009. Ethical preferences for influencing superiors: A 41-society study. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(6): 1022–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D. A., Giacalone, R., & Terpstra, R. H. 1994. Ethical perceptions of organizational politics: A comparative evaluation of American and Hong Kong managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(12): 989–999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D. A., Hallinger, P., Egri, C. P., & Naothinsuhk, S. 2005. The effects of culture and life stage on workplace strategies of upward influence: A comparison of Thailand and the United States. Journal of World Business, 40(3): 321–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D. A., Holt, D. A., Terpstra, R. H., & Yu, K.-C. 1997. The impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: A study of the United States, Russia, Japan, and China. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(1): 177–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D. A., & Pearson, A. 2010. The cross-cultural evolution of the subordinate influence ethics measure. Journal of Business Ethics, 91: 149–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D. A., Terpstra, R. H., Cunniff, M. K., & Gustafson, D. A. 1995. Do expatriates change their behaviors to fit a foreign culture? A study of American expatriates’ strategies of upward influence. Management International Review, 35(1): 109–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D. A., Terpstra-Tong, J., Maignan, I., Napier, N. K., & Nguyen, V. T. 2006. Vietnam: A cross-cultural comparison of upward influence ethics. Journal of International Management, 12(1): 85–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D. A., Vollmer, G. R., Srinvasan, N., Nicholson, J. D., Tang, M., & Wan, P. 2001. Strategies of upward influence: A study of six cultures from Europe, Asia, and America. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(6): 728–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. 2002. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, P., Edwards, J. E., & Thomas, M. D. 2005. Impression management. In N. Nicholson, P. G. Audia & M. Pillutla (Eds.). Blackwell encyclopedia of management, 2nd ed.: 163–165. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schermerhorn, J. R., Jr., & Bond, M. H. 1991. Upward and downward influence tactics in managerial networks: A comparative study of Hong Kong Chinese and Americans. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 8(2): 147–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, S. M., & Kipnis, D. 1984. Managers’ pursuit of individual and organizational goals. Human Relations, 37(10): 781–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. 1994. Cultural dimensions of values: Towards an understanding of national differences. In H. C. Kim, C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi & G. Yoon (Eds.). Individualism and collectivism: Theoretical and methodological issues: 85–119. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. 1990. Development as capability expansion. In K. Griffin & J. Knight (Eds.). Human development and the international development strategy for the 1990s: 41–55. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. 1999. Development as freedom. New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. 1996. National culture and the values of organizational employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27: 231–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. B., Huang, H. J., Harb, C., & Torres, C. 2012. How distinctive are indigenous ways of achieving influence? A comparative study of guanxi, wasta, jeitinho and “pulling strings”. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(1): 135–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. 1998. Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25: 78–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steidlmeier, P. 1999. Gift giving, bribery and corruption: Ethical management of business relationships in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 20(2): 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.). Psychology of inter-group relations: 7–24. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C. 1989. The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96: 506–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. S., & Farh, J.-L. L. 1997. Where guanxi matters: Relational demography and guanxi in the Chinese context. Work and Occupation, 24: 56–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ul Haq, M. 1995. Reflections on human development. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ul Haq, M. 2010. The human development concept. http://hdr.undp.org/en/humandev/, Accessed Aug. 3, 2010.

  • Van de Vliert, E. 2011. Climate-economic origins of variation in ingroup favoritism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42: 494–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. 1990. East Asian enterprise structures and the comparative analysis of forms of business organization. Organization Studies, 11(1): 47–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xin, K. R., & Pearce, J. L. 1996. Guanxi: Connections as substitutes for formal institutional support. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6): 1641–1658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamagishi, T., Jin, N., & Miller, A. S. 1998. In-group bias and culture of collectivism. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1: 315–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, I. Y. M., & Tung, R. L. 1996. Achieving business success in Confucian societies: The importance of guanxi (connections). Organizational Dynamics, 2: 54–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. 1990. Influence tactics in upward, downward and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2): 132–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yukl, G., Guinan, P. J., & Sottolano, D. 1995. Influence tactics used for different objectives with subordinates, peers, and superiors. Group & Organization Management, 20: 272–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

    Charlotte M. Karam

  2. Florida International University, University Park, FL, USA

    David A. Ralston

  3. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada

    Carolyn P. Egri

  4. Lahore University of Management Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan

    Arif Butt

  5. University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA

    Narasimhan Srinivasan

  6. Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR, China

    Ping Ping Fu

  7. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

    Chay Hoon Lee

  8. Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea

    Yong-lin Moon

  9. Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing, China

    Yongjuan Li

  10. University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Canada

    Mahfooz Ansari

  11. Yuan-Ze University, Taoyuan, Taiwan

    Christine Kuo

  12. National Economics University, Hanoi, Vietnam

    Vu Thanh Hung

  13. University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

    Andre Pekerti

  14. Anabas Learning Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand

    Philip Hallinger

  15. University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia

    Yongqing Fang

  16. National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Ho-Beng Chia

Authors
  1. Charlotte M. Karam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David A. Ralston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carolyn P. Egri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Arif Butt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Narasimhan Srinivasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ping Ping Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Chay Hoon Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yong-lin Moon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yongjuan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Mahfooz Ansari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Christine Kuo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Vu Thanh Hung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Andre Pekerti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Philip Hallinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Yongqing Fang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Ho-Beng Chia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Ralston.

Appendix: Description and items of the Subordinate Influence Ethics (SIE) dimensions

Appendix: Description and items of the Subordinate Influence Ethics (SIE) dimensions

Ethical Differentiation Index = (Pro-organizational ethics–Maliciously intended ethics)

Pro-organizational ethics behavior may be defined as the “organizational person” approach to gain influence in that these behaviors reflect those that are typically prescribed and/or sanctioned by organizations for their subordinates. These may be viewed as behaviors that tend to be directly beneficial to the organization.

  • ask to be given the responsibility for an important project.

  • behave in a manner that is seen as appropriate in the company.

  • demonstrate the ability to get the job done.

  • help subordinates to develop their skills so that the subordinates, in turn, will be in a position to help them attain their objectives.

  • maintain good working relationships with other employees, even if they dislike these other employees.

  • work overtime, if necessary, to get the job done.

Maliciously intended ethics behavior may be defined as the “burn, pillage, and plunder” approach to gain influence in that they are intended to directly hurt others and/or the organization, to facilitate personal gain. These behaviors are the extreme of self-serving behaviors, and in many industrialized societies these behaviors would also be considered illegal.

  • make anonymous, threatening phone calls to psychologically stress a competitor for a promotion.

  • offer sexual favors to a superior.

  • steal secret corporate documents and give them to another company in return for a better job at the other company.

  • threaten to give valuable company information to someone outside the organization if their demands are not met.

  • try to create a situation where a competitor for a promotion might be caught using illegal drugs or engaging in some other illegal activity.

Image management ethics behavior may be defined as subtle actions that an individual may use to influence his/her superiors with the objective being personal gain.

  • attempt to act in a manner that they believe will result in others admiring them.

  • identify and work for an influential superior who could help them get an advancement.

  • learn the likes and dislikes of important people in the organization in order to avoid offending these people.

  • use their technical expertise to make the superior dependent upon them.

  • volunteer for undesirable tasks to make themselves appreciated by the superior.

Self-serving ethics behavior may be defined as the “it’s me first” approach to gain influence in that these behaviors show self-interest being of paramount importance, and thus being above the interests of others and the organization. Whether these behaviors help or harm the organization is subject to interpretation and may be determined by the situation.

  • blame another for their own mistakes

  • spread rumors about someone or something that stands in the way of their advancement.

  • take credit for a good job that was done by their subordinates.

  • try to influence the boss to make a bad decision, if that decision would help them to get ahead.

  • use their network of friends to discredit a person competing with them for a possible promotion.

  • withhold information to make someone else look bad.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Karam, C.M., Ralston, D.A., Egri, C.P. et al. Perceptions of the ethicality of favors at work in Asia: An 11-society assessment. Asia Pac J Manag 30, 373–408 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-012-9335-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-012-9335-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation